Ohio attorney general Richard Cordray told justices during oral arguments that Frank Spisak had a fair trial and deserves death. Cordray urged the high court to reverse a federal appeals court ruling that found Spisak had an ineffective trial lawyer and found that his jury received faulty sentencing instructions.

Spisak, 58, was convicted of three murders at Cleveland State University over a seven-month period in 1982 – crimes he said were motivated by his hatred of gays, blacks and Jews. At the same time, Spisak claimed his crimes were sparked by mental illness related to confusion about his sexual and gender  identity. He wants to have surgery to become a woman.

The 1983 trial became a public spectacle as Spisak celebrated his killings in court and openly discussed his hateful views. He even grew a Hitler-style mustache, carried a copy of Hitler’s book, “Mein Kampf” during the proceedings and gave the Nazi salute to the jury.

The 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled that Spisak’s trial attorney essentially gave up on his client in closing arguments by conceding that Spisak was “demented” and “undeserving of sympathy.”

Cordray acknowledged the defense lawyer’s argument was far from perfect, but said the attorney – now deceased – did the best he could with an unsavory client. He said the defense lawyer instead appealed to the jury’s sense of humanity to spare from death a defendant who was obviously very troubled.

“I don’t see easily how he could have done better,” Cordray said.

Michael Benza, representing Spisak on appeal, said the former defense lawyer essentially abandoned his client.

“It is the role of a defense counsel to advocate,” Benza said.

But most of the justices were skeptical of Benza’s arguments.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that the Supreme Court had never found a defense lawyer to be ineffective solely on the basis of a closing argument if his conduct during the rest of trial was acceptable.

“You’re asking us to take a new tack,” she told Benza.

Chief Justice John Roberts said Spisak’s lawyer seemed to be trying to make the best out of a difficult situation by admitting to the jury that his client’s behavior was awful.

“It seems to me this disagreement is over different styles of strategy,” Roberts said.

Benza also argued that the instructions to jurors were flawed because they were not told that one juror’s vote against the death penalty would prevent a death sentence. Ohio law now includes such an instruction, although none was required at the time of Spisak’s trial.

It’s the second time the case has come before the high court. The justices reinstated Spisak’s death sentence two years ago in a 6-3 decision that scolded federal appeals courts for second-guessing trial judges in murder cases.

However, the appeals court reached the same conclusion it did the first time and threw out Spisak’s death sentence.

“The Obama-Biden Transition Project does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or any other basis of discrimination prohibited by law,” the Transition team says on its official Web site.

Although the commitment pertains only to transition team workers, LGBT civil rights activists say they believe Obama will issue an Executive Order shortly after being sworn in to extend that throughout the administration.

“The inclusion of gender identity is a bold departure from the past – and it sends a clear message,” said Christopher E. Anders, ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel.

“By including sexual orientation and gender identity in its non-discrimination policy, the Obama-Biden transition team makes clear that it will focus on the relevant qualities that actually predict an applicant’s success on the job – professional experience, character, skills and education.”

Although President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 11478, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, there are no explicit federal protections from gender identity bias in government hiring.

During the Bush administration, U.S. Special Counsel Scott Bloch refused to protect LGBT workers. The Office of the Special Counsel is supposed to protect whistleblowers and investigate complaints of discrimination by federal workers.

Bloch’s stonewalling of complaints of discrimination by LGBT federal workers dates to February 2004, when he ordered references to sexual orientation removed from the Office of the Special Counsel website.

A month after the references disappeared from the OSC website, Bloch said gay workers were no longer protected.

After intense pressure from Federal Globe – the LGBT organization for federal civil servants – and from Democrats on the Hill, the White House said it would honor the Executive Order signed by Clinton that assured LGBT workers of civil rights protections.

But with Bloch’s approval, several union contracts negotiated with various branches of the government removed the list of categories that are protected, replacing them with the more nebulous phrase “any class protected by law.”

Bloch said in May 2005 before the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs subcommittee that his interpretation of the Clinton executive order cannot be used to protect gay workers, because it does not specifically name LGBT workers.

“President-elect Obama and Vice President-elect Biden, by explicitly rejecting the bigotry and intolerance of the past, are committing that gay, lesbian, and transgender professionals can serve in government without fear of discrimination,” said Anders.  “This is a critical next step in securing the basic rights of LGBT community.”

The ACLU and other rights groups are calling on Obama to make passage of a gender-identity inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act – known as ENDA – one of his priorities.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, passed the House in 2007, but without protections for the transgendered.

The legislation would make it illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in hiring, firing, promoting or paying an employee.

ENDA as originally introduced by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass) included transpeople, but Frank removed those protections in committee, saying it would be impossible to pass.

More than a dozen LGBT groups immediately distanced themselves from the legislation. Frank and the Human Rights Campaign now say they will fight to ensure an inclusive ENDA is passed.

The bill expected to be reintroduced with gender identity protections in the next session of Congress.

The DC Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.

Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays, or PFOX, says in its suit that the Office of Human Rights does not recognize “ex-gays.”

The suit asks the DC Superior Court to direct the Office to include former homosexuals under the sexual orientation law.

“The ex-gay community is the most bullied and maligned group in America, yet they are not protected by sexual orientation non-discrimination laws,” said Regina Griggs, PFOX executive director, in a statement.

“Shouldn’t ex-gays enjoy the same legal protections that gays enjoy?” asked Griggs in the statement.

“Former homosexuals and their friends have been fired from their jobs, repeatedly ridiculed, assaulted, and intimidated. This harassment is most often perpetrated by the same groups who demand protection under sexual orientation laws but work to deny ex-gays the same respect.”

Griggs also said that the group wants protections for “ex-gays” in federal legislation – specifically the Employment Non-Discrimination Act known as ENDA.

“PFOX is especially concerned because Presidential candidate Barack Obama has failed to answer PFOX’s Aug. 25th letter asking if ex-gays will be included in sexual orientation legislation which Obama says he will sign into law as President,” said Griggs.

ENDA has passed the House but has yet to be taken up by the Senate.  It would outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, credit and housing.

“Former homosexuals should have the right to be out, open and safe in society,” said Griggs. “On his website, Senator Obama says he supports gay and transgender rights because he supports civil rights for all persons, but does that include ex-gays? Americans need to know where Obama stands on the issue of ex-gay inclusion because his pledge to pass homosexual and transgender legislation as President will affect all of us. We urge Senator Obama to end his silence.”